Patna High CourtCR. MISC./7570/2024bail granted

Ashish Kumar @ Vikky v. The State Of Bihar

2024-09-23Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7570 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-509 Year-2022 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE District- Katihar ====================================================== Ashish Kumar @ Vikky Son of Mahendra Prasad Yadav Resident of VillageKumaripur, P.S.-Manihari, Distt.-Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Akriti Nidhi D/O Mithilesh Kumar, wife of Ashish Kumar @ Vikky Resident of village-Ramchandrapur, P.S.-Pranpur, Distt.-Katihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Md Musowir For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Asha Kumari For the O.P. No. 2 :

Mr. Bipin Kumar Mr. Bijay Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-09-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the case was earlier taken up on 12.09.2024, when a submission was made on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is willing to restitute his conjugal rights

2/4 and he will go to the parental home of the O.P. No. 2 to fetch her back to her matrimonial home on 18.09.2024. The learned counsel further submits that petitioner had gone to the parental home of the O.P. No. 2 to fetch her back to her matrimonial home on 18.09.2024 and in support of the same, he has also videographed of his reaching the house of the O.P. No. 2, but then the house was locked and no one was present.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner next submits that it appears that O.P. No. 2 is not willing to restitute her conjugal rights or else she would have been present in the house on 18.09.2024 as the order was passed in presence of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2. It is next submitted that petitioner, being husband, is aware of his responsibility and no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail when he made endeavours to bring back the O.P. No. 2 to her matrimonial home, but then she was not present in the house. It is also submitted that with passage of time and on intervention of well wishers, the parties may resolve their dispute. It is next submitted that petitioner is willing to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- to the O.P. No. 2 which shall commence from 01.10.2024.

3/4

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 does not oppose the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and submits that since petitioner is willing to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- to the O.P No. 2, as such, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail. It is also submitted that if petitioner is sent to judicial custody, the chances of future reconciliation will get marred.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 submits that he will Whatsapp the bank account number of the O.P. No. 2 on the Whatsapp number of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner undertakes to communicate the same to the petitioner so that the monthly maintenance, as agreed, commences from 01.10.2024.

7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with C.A. Case No.

4/4 509 of 2022 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

8. However, it is made clear that the O.P. No. 2 shall be at liberty to file an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner in the event if the petitioner does not deposit the amount of monthly maintenance, as agreed, for two consecutive months.

9. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands allowed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T